> Well the message I got earlier was the IPv6 will not fix > the NAT problem - true or not true? Well, it won't fix the NAT problem in scenarios where v6 is not deployed. But aside from the other answers you've received so far, I've also heard several people mention the need to support something they call "address policy domains." I don't understand why they need it and I don't understand why an address policy domain couldn't be described as, say, 209.4.89.208/28 and I don't understand why it would *require* NAT, but it is something I've heard on several occasions. Melinda
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables David R. Conrad
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Keith Moore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Eliot Lear
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliver... V Guruprasad
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/del... V Guruprasad
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables J. Noel Chiappa
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliver... David R. Conrad
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables John Kristoff
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliver... Keith Moore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Melinda Shore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Randy Bush
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Keith Moore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Randy Bush
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliver... Keith Moore
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Robert G. Ferrell
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Ed Gerck
- Re: [midcom] WG scope/deliver... V Guruprasad
- RE: [midcom] WG scope/deliverables Bernard Aboba
- RE: [midcom] WG scope/deliver... Randy Bush